But as our Adversaries use the distinction of venial and mortal sin,1 it cannot stand with the forenamed nature of ⟨p. 139⟩sin, implied under this Metaphor Debt. They say that many sins area venial, because they are pardonable of their own nature, and not worthy of damnation. They give these and such like instances of venial sins: Sudden motions of lust, banger, and envy: Immoderate laughter, an idle word, deceit in a small thing, as an half-penny, &c. Their great Champaign doth thus express the meaning of their Church in this point:4 Venial sin is in its own nature distinguished from mortal, and without any respect to predestination, or to the mercy of God, or to the state of the regenerate, it is of that kind, as it deserveth not eternal punishment. He inserteth these phrases (without respect to Predestination, or to the mercy of God, or to the state of the regenerate) because orthodoxall Divines have granted that the title venial, may be applied to sin in regard of Gods eternal predestination, and purpose to pardon sin, and in regard of the mercy of God, which is greater then the desert of sin, and in regard of the regenerate, whose faith gaineth an absolution for sin. To show therefore, that he and his heretical Church, whose cause he maintaineth, goeth beyond the limits of all truth, he rejecteth the fore-named limitations wherein truth is bounded: and will have venial sins to be of themselves in their own nature not worthy of damnation. In their sense, these two terms, Sin, Venial, are contradictory, Sin is (according to the doctrine of the Scripture) worthy of damnation. Venial (according to their sense) is not worthy fo damnation. 5To say therefore that sin is venial, is to say that worthy of damnation, is not worthy of damnation. But I demand, are their venial sins pleasing or displeasing to God? one of them they must be. A mean cannot be given betwixt these two contradictory terms, which is neither of them. They dare not say that venial sins are pleasing to God. Then do they displease him. If they displease him they offend an infinite goodness, an infinite excellency, an infinite Majesty, and in that respect are worthy of an infinite punishment.
But as our Aduersaries vse the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne,1 it cannot stand with the forenamed nature of ⟨p. 139⟩sinne, implyed vnder this Metaphor Debt. They say that many sinnes area veniall, because they are pardonable of their owne nature, and not worthy of damnation. They giue these and such like instances of veniall sinnes: Sudden motions of lust, banger, and enuie: Immoderate laughter, an idle word, deceit in a small thing, as an halfe-peny, &c. Their great Champian doth thus expresse the meaning of their Church in this point:4 Veniall sinne is in its owne nature distinguished from mortall, and without any respect to predestination, or to the mercy of God, or to the state of the regenerate, it is of that kinde, as it deserueth not eternall punishment. He inserteth these phrases (without respect to Predestination, or to the mercy of God, or to the state of the regenerate) because orthodoxall Diuines haue granted that the title veniall, may be applied to sinne in regard of Gods eternall predestination, and purpose to pardon sinne, and in regard of the mercy of God, which is greater then the desert of sinne, and in regard of the regenerate, whose faith gaineth an absolution for sinne. To shew therefore, that hee and his hereticall Church, whose cause hee maintaineth, goeth beyond the limits of all truth, hee reiecteth the fore-named limitations wherein truth is bounded: and will haue ventall sinnes to be of themselues in their owne nature not worthy of damnation. In their sence, these two termes, Sinne, Veniall, are contradictorie, Sinne is (according to the doctrine of the Scripture) worthy of damnation. V•niall (according to their sence) is not worthy fo damnation. 5To say therefore that sinne is veniall, is to say that worthy of damnation, is not worthy of damnation. But I demand, are their veniall sins pleasing or displeasing to God? one of them they must be. A meane cannot bee giuen betwixt these two contradictorie termes, which is neither of them. They dare not say that veniall sinnes are pleasing to God. Then doe they displease him. If they displease him they offend an infinite goodnesse, an infinite excellency, an infinite Maiestie, and in that respect are worthy of an infinite punishment.
